I have just read part of a inquest statement into the sudden death of a teenager in gorge. The full report is here, and makes interesting reading for anyone engaging in activities that include ‘jumping’ into water. I would see this to include gorge walking, sea level traversing and sea level traverses. The report notes that because these activities are reasonably new, that previous legislation inparticular the Young Persons Safety Act, that prompted the formation of AALA, now AALS (Adventurous Activities Licencing Service now part of the Health and Safety Executive HSE), doesn’t require a licence to undertake such activities.
In essence the report looks at what it considered to be an inappropriately risky jump into a pool of water, and that despite concerns raised by staff the Chief Instructor was insufficently qualified or experience to make the a judgement as to whether the activity was suitable for young people. The report mentions numerous times that the Abernethy Trust failed in my mind in their duty of care to implement robust safety guidelines and proceedures, inparticular not discussing the use of the higher pool jump with there technical expert, who acts as an independent expert for centres when they establish new activities, and helps centres make robust decisions on the safety of people in the centres care.
In particular to anyone who makes clients jump into water from height should read this report, as it highlights the reasons why this pool used by the Abernethy Trust was inappropriate. As it had a drop of 9.5 meters and required students to clear 1.5 meters to clear a rocky ledge.
I know of other centres that use similar configurations of jump where a student has to jump outwards to avoid impacting on rocks or submerged ledges to avoid injury. In the report it argues that this is totally in appropriate, as in the case the report has investigated the student tried to chicken out of the jump after they had committed to the leap. Something that is so unpredictable that it makes assessing such a risk impossible. On a previous occasion another jumper from the sight had slipped as they jumped, narrowly missing the same fateful ledge.
To me this report makes a clear and unarguable finding that for a jump site to be appropriate that a vertical fall from the take off platform should lead to a clean landing in the water, meaning the drop needs to be either vertical or overhanging. Similarly the take off point needs to be flat and easy to access. The needs to be no reliance on the student not slipping or not chickening out.
Similarly I would question the need to use a jump that is in the magnitude of 9.5m, as to what extent does this add to the ‘educational experience’ of the group, what message are you sending them away with and mainly why are you justifying such an activity.
Generally the idea of risk used in Outdoor Pursuits is to use what the profession refer to as apparent danger, in that we put students in a situation that is beyond there normal comfort zone, and make them feel like they are engaged in a risk activity, however the actual danger is reduced to near zero by safety proceedures and measures like safety ropes, helmets, bouyancy aids and even things like the choice of venue.
I can only feel great sorrow for the family of the young girl who lost her life in such terrible circumstances. Hopefully those that engage in such activities will read and take heed of all the advice and recommendations made by the report.